He signed a sworn statement. It's in writing. How/why would that be different from him saying the same thing? Anyway, that's what's been reported...at risk of perjury. The complaint against this sworn statement vs. testifying in person, is the inability to be questioned or cross-examined. NOT that there is not risk of perjury.
Just presenting the facts. Which, I know, is of no interest to you.
I still say she never shows up. If the democrats had wanted her to show up, Feinstein wouldn't have held the letter for 6 weeks.
Heard that Tucker Carlson had fun with a lefty lady last night. She argued for a standard of guilty until proven innocent. And after being pressed again when Tucker said something like, “So you agree that someone should be able to accuse you of something without having to prove your guilt?”, she didn’t give him an answer.
Just like every other socialist democrat argument, it sounds great as long as you don’t have to follow the standard yourself.
That neither he, or Kavanaugh, were ever at such a party, as described by Ford.
Wait, found it...had to Bing it....his statement is "have no memory of attending such a party." "have no memory of..."
He said, when pushed by the media, paraphrasing: if I am forced to testify (subpoenaed) I will make the same statement.
So back to my original statement. Given that his statement pertains to his lack of memory, something that cannot be tested without further examination, how could there be risk of perjury of issuing such a statement absent further cross-examination from the panel? How would you go about proving he lied if you can’t ask him follow-up statements? There really is no risk of perjury unless he is called to testify.
Guess this means Bill Cosby can forget about being a SC Justice....
No wait! he's probably a good lib democrap. Of course he can still serve on the Supreme Court. Or, even be senator from Alabama.